[2005] KEHC 943 (KLR)
The court held that the application was incompetent because it was not supported by an affidavit and did not annex the ruling outlining the reasons for the taxing master’s decision, both of which are mandatory requirements under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Without these, the court could not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 943 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shah & Parekh; Respondent: Apollo Insurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 263 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation Decision
- Outcome
- application struck out as incompetent
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration Order, Striking Out Applications
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shah & Parekh
Applicant
Apollo Insurance Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to set aside the taxing master’s decision is competent without an affidavit and without annexing the ruling outlining the reasons for the taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application was incompetent because it was not supported by an affidavit and did not annex the ruling outlining the reasons for the taxing master’s decision, both of which are mandatory requirements under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Without these, the court could not make a fair determination of the matter, and therefore the application was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out as incompetent
Orders
- The application is struck out as being incompetently before the court.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Misc Appli 263 of 2003 SHAH & PAREKH ……………………………………………….………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS APOLLO INSURANCE CO. LTD ………………...………………….. DEFENDANT RULING
In this application dated 30th May, 2005, made under Rule 11 (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, the Applicant seeks to set aside the taxing master’s decision on taxation delivered on 20th November, 2002 on the grounds that are stipulated on the body of the application.
The application is not supported by an affidavit – at least there is none on file, and the Ruling outlining the reasons of the taxing master’s decision has not been annexed. This is mandatory.
Without the benefit of those reasons, I cannot make a fair determination of this matter.
Accordingly, I will strike out this application as being incompetently before this Court, with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of December, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM JUDGE